Guilherme Brando∗1, Felipe T. Falciano1,2, Eric V. Linder3,4, Hermano E. S. Velten1,5
1PPGCosmo, CCE - Universidade Federal do Esp´ırito Santo, zip 29075-910, Vit´oria, ES, Brazil
2CBPF - Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F´ısicas,
Xavier Sigaud st. 150, zip 22290-180, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
3Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics & Berkeley Lab, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
4Energetic Cosmos Laboratory, Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan 010000
5Departamento de F´ısica, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP), zip 35400-000, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil∗ (Dated: May 1, 2019)
Within the effective field theory approach to cosmic acceleration, the background expansion can be specified separately from the gravitational modifications. We explore the impact of modified gravity in a background different from a cosmological constant plus cold dark matter (ΛCDM) on the stability and cosmological observables, including covariance between gravity and expansion parameters. In No Slip Gravity the more general background allows more gravitational freedom, including both positive and negative Planck mass running. We examine the effects on cosmic struc- ture growth, as well as showing that a viable positive integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect crosscorrelation easily arises from this modified gravity theory. Using current data we constrain parameters with a Monte Carlo analysis, finding a maximum running|αM|.0.03. We provide the modifiedhi class code publicly on GitHub, now enabling computation and inclusion of the redshift space distortion observablef σ8as well as the No Slip Gravity modifications.
I. INTRODUCTION
Cosmic acceleration arises from an unknown physical origin but leaves concrete signatures in cosmic distances, growth of structure, light propagation and lensing, and cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies.
Careful investigation of all of these can provide insight into whether the effects are wholly due to a change in the cosmic expansion rate or also modification of the strength of gravity.
The background expansion in modified gravity theo- ries, however, tends to be chosen as that of a cosmologi- cal constant plus cold dark matter (ΛCDM), or solved for only in the simplest viable models, such as f(R), where it lies very close to ΛCDM. However, the expansion rate is a function to be specified in the theory, just as the perturbative effective field theory or property functions are [1–5]. Here we examine the implications of allow- ing background cosmologies away from ΛCDM, as well as modified gravity, and their interplay.
Of particular interest is how this affects cosmic growth observables, which depend both on the expansion rate and strength of gravity, and the crosscorrelation of per- turbed quantities, such as CMB temperature anisotropies from the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect and galaxy clustering density. Indeed, some theories have been ruled out due to possessing an anticorrelation for this, rather than the observed positive correlation. Theories can also be discarded ab initio if they are unstable, but a non- ΛCDM background offers extra possibilities for stabiliz- ing some theories.
The range of allowed effective theories is large, even with the tensor sector constrained to have the speed of gravitational waves equal to the speed of light. There- fore we consider particular connections between the two relevant property functions – the Planck mass running and the kinetic braiding. A specific instantiation of such a relation is No Slip Gravity [6], one of the simplest and most predictive modified gravity theories, and we use this as an exemplar for the detailed calculations.
In Sec. IIwe briefly review the property function for- malism and explore the space of stable theories, also con- sidering viability in terms of CMB observations. Sec- tionIIIexamines more closely No Slip Gravity in a non- ΛCDM background, showing how the parameter space is enlarged. We investigate the impact on the cosmic structure growth rate in Sec. IV, and the lensing po- tential and ISW effect in Sec.V. SectionVI presents a Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis of current data and constrains background and gravity parameters simulta- neously. We conclude in Sec.VII.
II. GRAVITY IN A NON-ΛCDM BACKGROUND A convenient formalism for exploring many theories of cosmic modified gravity was developed by [1], involv- ing four property functions, and the expansion history H(a). These completely characterize the theory at the linear perturbation level. While this is an impressive sim- plification when working with Horndeski’s most general scalar-tensor gravity theory [1,7,8] or the effective field theory of dark energy [2–5], this still leaves five free func- tions of time to specify.
The detection of a binary neutron star merger with gravitational waves [9] and its electromagnetic counter-
arXiv:1904.12903v1 [astro-ph.CO] 29 Apr 2019
parts [10,11] provided a constraint on the speed of propa- gation of gravitational wavesc2T = 1+αT, withαT = 0 in the most straightforward interpretation. Another prop- erty function, the kineticityαK, has little effect on sub- horizon physics and generally does not need to be spec- ified in detail. This leaves the Planck mass runningαM
and the braiding αB, as well as the background itself, e.g. the Hubble parameter H(a), where a is the cosmic expansion factor.
The arbitrariness and generality of the functional form of the αi(a) functions can lead the theory to unphysi- cal regimes. Three types of instabilities can violate the soundness of the theory: tachyon, ghost, and gradient.
As pointed out, and carefully analyzed in [12], the first type of instability is less pathological and is associated with the large scale, low-kregime (wherekis the Fourier mode), and is commonly not directly used in the modi- fied gravity Boltzmann codes available in the literature, such as EFTCAMB [13,14] andhi class[15]. The other two instabilities are more severe, and must be avoided.
This provides constraints on the αi functions. For the no ghost condition, αK + (3/2)α2B ≥ 0, this is readily satisfied by choosingαK >0.
Avoidance of gradient instabilities corresponds to the scalar sound speed squared being nonnegative,
c2s= 1 αK+ 3α2B/2
1−αB
2
2αM+αB−2H0 H
+α0B−ρ˜m+ ˜pm H2
≥0 ,
(1)
where a prime is a derivative with respect to lna and a tilde denotes division by M?2(a)/MPl2, where M?2 is the running Planck mass squared. In terms of an effective dark energy we can write
c2s= 1 αK+ 3α2B/2
h 1−αB
2
(2αM +αB) +(HαB)0
H −ρ˜de(1 +w) H2
≥0,
(2)
where w is the effective dark energy equation of state parameter. For a ΛCDM background, 1 +w= 0.
Thus a change in the background changes the stability condition. Taking the example of No Slip Gravity, where αB=−2αM, the stability region alters to
(αMH)0
H ≤3
2
Ω˜de(a) [1 +w(a)], (3) where ˜Ωde = ˜ρde/(3H2). In particular, while a ΛCDM background requiresαM ≥0 for stability, in the enlarged spaceαM <0 is also allowed.
This provides a motivation for studying non-ΛCDM backgrounds, since the enlarged parameter space may also lead to different observational characteristics. For general time dependenciesαM(a),αB(a), andw(a) there is little specific that can be said, so we will have to
parametrize these functions. For the effective dark en- ergy we adopt the commonw(a) =w0+wa(1−a), which has been demonstrated to work for a broad class of scalar field and modified gravity theories. ForαB(a) we explore the class of theories where this is proportional toαM(a), i.e.
αB(a) =−r αM(a). (4) Such a relation holds for No Slip Gravity (r = 2) and f(R) gravity, Brans-Dicke, and chameleon theories (r= 1). The ΛCDM background case was studied in [16].
Figure1shows the stability region fora≤1 in thew0– wa parameter space for the example of No Slip Gravity.
The ΛCDM value (w0, wa) = (−1,0) is stable and a sig- nificant part of the regionw0>−1 is as well. There is a sharp boundary asw0gets appreciably smaller than −1 (roughlyw0<−1.026 for theαM parameters used; this is independent ofwabecause the instability arises at late times, i.e. a= 1). The form of αM(a) used here is the hill/valley form discussed below (a similar picture holds for the hill form of [6], also discussed below). We also in- dicate the mirage relationwa=−3.6 (1 +w0) that nearly preserves the ΛCDM distance to CMB last scattering [17]
and so indicates a level of observational viability.
FIG. 1. Stability region in the w0–wa plane for No Slip Gravity with the hill/valley form ofαM(a) with parameters cM=−0.05,τ= 1, andat= 0.5. Red regions indicate insta- bility. The mirage relationwa =−3.6(1 +w0) is plotted as the dashed blue line.
Alternately, Fig. 2shows the stability region as we al- low r to vary, but restrict the dark energy equation of state to the mirage form. (Allowingr, w0, andwa all to be free adds little qualitatively and diminishes the clarity of the plots.) Asr gets large the stable parameter space
opens up in w0–wa (for this hill/valley form of αM(a) at least). Note that r → ∞, i.e.αM = 0 but αB 6= 0, corresponds to No Run Gravity [18].
FIG. 2. Stability region in ther–w0 plane forwa given by the mirage relation. Red regions give instability. This adopts the hill/valley form forαM(a) with parameterscM =−0.05, τ = 1 andat= 0.5. The crosshairs center on No Slip gravity in a ΛCDM background.
III. NO SLIP GRAVITY
For the remainder of the article we focus on No Slip Gravity, as an intriguingly minimal modification with in- teresting phenomenology (e.g. suppression of growth, un- usual for modified gravity) and good stability. Note that even with a change in background, the no slip condition remains αB = −2αM. As mentioned, for stability in a ΛCDM background theαM property function must sat- isfy [6]
(αMH)0
H =α0M +αM
H0
H ≤0, (5)
which implies
αM ≥0, (6)
since H0 < 0 at all times in a normal cosmic history.
However, Eq. (3) allows αM < 0 since the right hand side can be lifted off zero, opening a window for negative αM at some point in its evolution.
We therefore change the hill form of [6] where αM(a) =cM
1−tanh2 τ
2ln a at
= cM
cosh2[(τ /2) ln(a/at)]
= 4cM(a/at)τ
[(a/at)τ+ 1]2 , (7) to allow for a negative part ofαM(a), i.e. a valley as well as a hill. This hill/valley form is a simple modification without adding any further parameters:
αM(a) =cM tanh [(τ /2) ln(a/at)]
cosh2[(τ /2) ln(a/at)]
= 4cM(a/at)τ[−1 + (a/at)τ] [1 + (a/at)τ]3 .
(8)
In the early universe αM ≈ −4cM(a/at)τ, so we want τ >0 to preserve general relativity at early times. (For- mally one can switch the signs ofτandcM, as seen in the first equation above, and get the same results; we take theτ >0 branch.) The function then dips into a valley / rises to a hill forcM >0 /cM <0. At late times, in the far futureaat, the running vanishes as (a/at)−τ. This is as expected for a de Sitter asymptote but not required forw 6= −1 backgrounds. However, we only apply this form to past history,a≤1, where there are observational constraints. The parameters arecM, related to the am- plitude, at is the scale factor of the transition between valley and hill (withαM(at) = 0), and τ measures the rapidity of the transition. Note that unlike the hill form, cM is not the maximum amplitude; rather, the extreme (maximum and minimum) amplitudes are
αM,ext=cM 10±6√ 3 27±15√
3 ≈ ±0.385cM . (9) The depth of the valley and height of the hill agree, and these occur symmetrically aroundat, with
amax=at(2 +√
3)1/τ= a2t amin
. (10)
Forτ = 1 we haveamax= 3.73at,amin= 0.27at.
From αM(a) one derives the Planck mass squaredM?2 through
M?2
MPl2 =eR0ada0/a0αM(a0). (11) For the hill/valley form this becomes
M?2 MPl2 = exp
"
−4(cM/τ)(a/at)τ [1 + (a/at)τ]2
#
. (12)
This smoothly evolves from 1 in the early universe to an extremum at a = at with M?2(at)/MPl2 = e−cM/τ and then back to 1 in the far future.
Note that in No Slip Gravity the modified gravitational strengths in the matter and relativistic particle (light) Poisson equations are
Geff ≡Gmatter=Glight= MPl2
M?2 . (13) Whether M?2 grows initially (weaker gravity) or dimin- ishes (stronger gravity) depends on the sign ofcM. Sta- bility requires αM > 0 in the early universe and so we must havecM <0. Thus the interesting feature of weaker gravitational strength from No Slip Gravity holds even in a non-ΛCDM background.
Figure3showsαM(a) andGeff(a) for different values of the hill/valley parameters. Changingataffects whenαM
crosses zero, i.e. the transition time between the hill and valley. Increasingτ steepens the transition, moving the minimum and maximum values ofαM closer to the zero crossing. The amplitude ofαM is governed bycM, scaling linearly with it. Inverting the sign of cM would change hills to valleys and vice versa. ForGeff, we see that indeed forcM <0 gravity is weakened, where unity corresponds to the gravitational strength being Newton’s constant.
The maximum weakening occurs atat. SinceGeff returns to unity for scale factors aat, then smallerat means Geff deviates from general relativity for a shorter time.
Increasingτagain squeezes the transition, but also affects the maximum amplitude. Recall from Eq. (12) that the maximum deviation is Geff,max =ecM/τ. Increasing cM
increases the amplitude, exponentially.
For illustrative purposes, the plots in the next two sec- tions will fix at= 0.5 and τ = 1 – values near the edge of the eventual 68% confidence limit joint posterior – to more clearly show the effects of the modified gravity on observables. When we carry out Monte Carlo constraint analysis in Sec.VI we will show the impact of fixingat
andτ vs fitting for {cM, at, τ}simultaneously.
IV. EFFECTS ON COSMIC GROWTH Changes to the strength of gravity, Geff, will directly affect the growth of large scale structure in the universe.
This can be measured through galaxy redshift surveys through redshift space distortions caused by the veloc- ities due to gravitational clustering, in the form of the cosmological parameter combination f σ8(a). Here f is the logarithmic growth rate and σ8 is the mass fluctua- tion amplitude.
For various cosmological backgrounds, i.e. expansion histories described by matter plus dark energy with a mirage equation of state, we solve numerically the sub- horizon linear density perturbation growth equation with various modified gravitational strengthsGeff. The solu- tions for the redshift space distortion (RSD) parameter f σ8(a) of the growth rate history are compared to the equivalent result for the same background but with gen- eral relativity, and to current observational data.
FIG. 3. Curves ofGeff and αM for the hill/valley form are shown for different values ofτandat, withcM =−1. Positive cM reflectsαM about 0, so hills become valleys, and inverts Geff, so values less than one become greater than one.
Figure 4 shows the results. The observational data points come from the galaxy redshift surveys of 6dFGRS [19], GAMA [20], BOSS [21], WiggleZ [22], and VIPERS [23]. Indeed No Slip Gravity, even in the hill/valley form where αM can be both positive and negative during its evolution, suppresses growth relative to the general rel- ativity with the same background expansion. This char- acteristic, rare for modified gravity theories, gives an im- proved fit to the RSD data for the same background.
We also see that the mirage dark energy models, even with an equation of state today as far from a cosmolog- ical constant as w0 = −0.8, have quite similar growth histories as in the corresponding ΛCDM model of the same gravitational theory, i.e. general relativity or No Slip Gravity. This is one of the useful properties of the mirage models, even in the nonlinear power spectrum, as highlighted in [17,24].
V. LENSING POTENTIAL AND ISW EFFECT While we have considered the effect of modified grav- ity on the growth of cosmic structure, gravity also affects light propagation. That is, in addition to Gmatter there is a modification of Poisson equation involving the sum of the metric potentials Φ + Ψ (often called the Weyl potential), or Glight. Recall that for No Slip Gravity Glight =MPl2/M?2. The sum of potentials generally de- cays in a universe with dark energy as matter domination wanes. However, if gravity is strengthened then it could
FIG. 4. The redshift space distortion observable f σ8, basi- cally the growth rate history, is plotted for ΛCDM and for mirage dark energy with present equation of state param- eter w0, in general relativity (GR) and in No Slip Gravity with cM = −0.05, at = 0.5, τ = 1. All curves have fixed Ωm,0 = 0.314, and the resulting values of σ8,0 are indicated in the legend. Galaxy redshift survey data points are shown with their error bars. Note that No Slip Gravity suppresses growth, unlike many modified gravity theories, bringing the theory into better agreement with this growth data.
overcome this tendency and grow the potentials. This not only gives a large integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) ef- fect (proportional to ˙Φ + ˙Ψ) in the CMB but can cause an anticorrelation between the ISW and the density per- turbations.
Such issues are discussed in detail in [25–27], and some cubic Horndeski gravity theories indeed have a nega- tive crosscorrelation between CMB temperature pertur- bations and galaxy density perturbations,C`T g. This con- flicts with the prediction of ΛCDM, and data, and is a strong indicator against such theories. (We note, how- ever, that we have verified that No Run Gravity [18], a subclass of cubic Horndeski gravity, and with a strength- ening of gravity, still does have a positive crosscorrela- tion.)
Since No Slip Gravity weakens gravity, suppressing growth, we expect the Weyl potential to decay (i.e.
weaker gravitational lensing). Figure 5 confirms this.
The lensing potential in No Slip Gravity is suppressed relative to general relativity for the same background.
One can use the same analytic calculation as in [28] to approximate the degree of suppression. Note that, as for growth, the mirage models act in light propagation quite similarly to the ΛCDM model they were designed to mimic in CMB distance to last scattering.
Given the preservation of the characteristic of a de- caying lensing potential as in ΛCDM, we might expect a positive temperature-density crosscorrelation at large an- gles (low multipoles l) where the ISW effect dominates.
FIG. 5. The Weyl lensing potential is plotted for ΛCDM and for mirage dark energy with present equation of state parame- terw0, in general relativity (GR) and in No Slip Gravity with cM =−0.05, at = 0.5, τ = 1. The weakened gravity in No Slip Gravity enhances the decay of the potential, in contrast to, e.g., Galileon gravity.
Let us calculate this in detail. We will follow closely the procedure outlined in [26], to compute the cross correla- tion between the CMB temperature and a galaxy survey.
First we must calculate ClT g = 4π
Z dk
k ∆ISWl (k)∆gl(k)PR(k), (14) wherePR is the power spectrum of the primordial cur- vature perturbations (R(k)), and ∆ISWl and ∆gl are the transfer functions for the ISW effect and for the galaxies.
The first is given by
∆ISWl = Z η0
η∗
dη(Φ0+ Ψ0)jl , (15) where η∗ and η0 are the conformal time at recombina- tion and today, respectively, and a prime here denotes a derivative with respect toη. The transfer functions are impacted by the modified gravity theory being considered and are calculated through the perturbation equations, which are solved numerically byhi class.
For computations in which source number counts are present, the relevant transfer function is given as
∆gl ≈∆Denl i+. . . , (16) where the dots represent other contributions such as redshift-space distortions, lensing, polarization, and con- tributions suppressed byH/k in subhorizon scales [26].
The explicit form of ∆Denl i is
∆Denl i = Z η0
0
dη Wibg(η)δ(η, k)jl , (17)
where δ(η, k) is the density perturbation at the Fourier mode k, jl =jl(k(η0−η)) is a Bessel function, and Wi
is a window function, discussed below. To be consistent with hi class all transfer functions are normalized to the value of the curvature perturbation at some time kηini1, e.g.δ(η, k) =δ(η,k)/R(ηini,k).
For a galaxy sample we use the NVSS survey [29], which covers the sky north of 40 deg declination in one band. This is a large area, fairly deep survey with good overlap with the CMB ISW kernel. The selection func- tionWi is given by the observed number of sources per redshift, dN/dz, and we use a constant bias factor for each redshift bin. The survey selection function is given by [30] as
bg(z)dN dz
NVSS
=beff
αα+1
zα+10 Γ(α)zαe−αz/z0 , (18) withbeff = 1.98,z0= 0.79 andα= 1.18.
We modified hi classin order to implement (18) in a specific subroutine of the transfermodule. Figure 6 shows the results. We see that indeed No Slip Gravity gives a positive ISW crosscorrelation, in agreement with the ΛCDM case, and observational data. However, with- out a proper calibration of the bias factor for the NVSS survey in No Slip Gravity with this background, as done in [26] for the Galileon model, we cannot investigate in quantitative detail a likelihood analysis of the ISW data.
This is left for future work. The calibration of the bias would affect the height and position of the hill present for` <20. Note that on those large scales there is also an influence of the value chosen for the αK parameter.
We have investigated this and find that for αK = 0.1 the effect is less than 0.2% for ` > 20, rising to 0.5%
for the lowest `(relative to the corresponding case with αK = 10−4). Given the size of the uncertainties in the data (including cosmic variance), this is a negligible ef- fect.
VI. COSMOLOGY AND GRAVITY CONSTRAINTS
Having explored the impact of modified gravity in a non-ΛCDM background on both growth of structure and light propagation we now proceed to perform a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis of our model us- ing MontePython [31, 32]. We fit over the standard cosmological parameters plus some additional effective dark energy and modified gravity ones: w0 and wa for the background and cM, at, and τ for modified grav- ity. We do not apply the mirage relation between w0
and wa, but we will find that it gives a reasonable fit to the MCMC joint confidence contour (also see Fig. 2 of [33]). In one case we fix at = 0.5, τ = 1 as fiducial values, for reasons given in Sec. III, but we also allow them to vary in another case. The sum of the masses of the neutrinos (one massive and two massless) is fixed to
FIG. 6. The ISW-galaxy crosscorrelationC`T g is plotted for ΛCDM and for mirage dark energy with present equation of state parameterw0, in general relativity (GR) and in No Slip Gravity withcM =−0.05,at = 0.5,τ = 1. The data points come from the NVSS survey, as extracted from [30]. We see that, indeed, No Slip Gravity gives a positive crosscorrelation.
0.06 eV. On the extra parameters we use flat priors of w0∈[−1.2,0],wa∈[−1,0.5], andcM ∈[−0.1,0]. When varying the modified gravity transition parameters we use at ∈ [0.1,1] and τ ∈ [0.33,2.19] from stability and observational considerations. These priors are informed by the stability analysis in AppendixA.
For data sets we use CMB (PlanckT T T EEE[34] and lensing [35]), BAO (BOSS DR12 [21], SDSS DR7 MGS [36], 6dFGS [19]), RSD (BOSS DR12 [21]), and super- novae (JLA [37]). Note that we added tohi classthe capability to compute the redshift space distortion ob- servable f σ8, which it previously lacked, and included this in MCMC likelihood evaluation for No Slip modi- fied gravity. The modified code is publicly accessible at https://github.com/gbrandool/hi_class_public.
All the parameter constraints were extracted using the Gelman-Rubin convergence diagnosticR, with a conver- gence criterion of R−1 < 0.01 [38]. The derived con- straints for the fixedat and τ case are given in Table I and the triangle plot in Figure7.
The mass fluctuation amplitude σ8 is lower than the general relativity value, due to the suppression of growth by No Slip Gravity, as presaged in Fig. 4. This could put it in better agreement with weak lensing measure- ments [39–43] (but see [44]), which are not included in this analysis. The amplitude of the Planck mass running αM, in terms ofcM, is restricted at the couple of percent level (cM > −0.03 at 95% CL), but this can still have a discernible effect on growth of structure and lensing.
However general relativity (cM = 0) is within the 95%
confidence level. Again note the one sided distribution due to stability considerations.
Finally, we repeat the analysis allowing at and τ to vary. The results are shown in Table II and in Fig. 8.
FIG. 7. Triangle plot of the joint probability distributions, and marginalized one dimensional posteriors, for various cosmological and gravity parameters. Hereat= 0.5 andτ = 1 are fixed.
Note that theatandτ posteriors have pulled away from the lower bounds on the priors (and the upper bounds are given by stability conditions). The exception is when cM approaches zero – corresponding to general relativity – whereatandτ become irrelevant, as seen from Eq. (8).
By allowing atandτ to vary,cM can now assume more negative values than in the previous fixed case. Figure9 compares the 1D posteriors forcMbetween the two cases.
ForcM distinct from zero, larger amplitude incM cor- relates with largerτ. This follows from the Planck mass maximum being e−cM/τ, and Geff being the inverse of
the Planck mass. Similarly, increasingatmoves the max- imum deviation inGeff later, decreasing its effect, and so at andcM are also correlated.
At the background level, all matter parameters are con- sistent with the usual general relativity, ΛCDM values.
With regard to dark energy, note the mostly one sided distribution ofw0as required by stability considerations.
The joint posterior forw0–wa shown in Fig.10 demon- strates that mirage models come close to describing the viable models. This indicates that the CMB acoustic scale provides significant constraining power, and is also
FIG. 8. Triangle plot of the joint probability distributions, and marginalized one dimensional posteriors, for various cosmological and gravity parameters. Hereatandτ are free to vary.
consistent with structure growth as seen in Fig. 4. The posterior is pulled slightly above the mirage line due to the BAO and supernovae which prefer a somewhat lower matter density at medium redshifts, and hence a more persistent dark energy (w0>−1).
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Allowing for freedom in the cosmic background his- tory enables greater diversity of stable modified gravity
models. In particular, for No Slip Gravity it opens up parameter space withαM <0. To study this, we intro- duced a new hill-valley form forαM(a) that allows both increasing and decreasing Planck mass evolution. We derived the simple analytic form forM?2, and the effec- tive gravitational strengthGeff, plus analytic limits from stability considerations on some parameters (w0 andτ).
Beyond No Slip Gravity we also briefly explored a gener- alized relation between the effective field theory property functionsαB andαM.
For the background evolution, the dark energy mirage
Param best-fit mean±σ 95% lower 95% upper 102ωb 2.234 2.225+0.015−0.016 2.194 2.257 ωcdm 0.1193 0.1194+0.0014−0.0014 0.1167 0.1222 H0 67.75 66.59+1.1−0.82 64.63 68.42 109As 2.163 2.208+0.058−0.067 2.085 2.336 ns 0.9647 0.966+0.0046−0.0046 0.9568 0.9753 τreio 0.06993 0.08+0.014−0.016 0.05055 0.1101 cM −0.005683 −0.01252+0.013−0.0032 −0.02988 0.0 w0 −0.9953 −0.9407+0.023−0.064 −1.015 −0.8363 wa −0.03216 −0.1123+0.19−0.14 −0.4807 0.2184 σ8 0.816 0.8095+0.012−0.011 0.7864 0.8323 TABLE I. Results of the MCMC analysis for various cosmo- logical and gravity parameters, for the case withat= 0.5 and τ= 1 fixed.
Param best-fit mean±σ 95% lower 95% upper 102ωb 2.227 2.225+0.016−0.016 2.193 2.257 ωcdm 0.119 0.1195+0.0014−0.0014 0.1167 0.1224 H0 67.38 66.97+1.1−1.2 64.62 69.3 109As 2.156 2.193+0.056−0.063 2.073 2.314 ns 0.9662 0.9656+0.0048−0.0048 0.9561 0.9749 τreio 0.06865 0.0764+0.014−0.015 0.0479 0.106 cM −0.004449 −0.0322+0.032−0.009 −0.07995 0.0 at 0.275 0.676+0.32−0.094 0.2615 1.0 τ 1.446 1.631+0.56−0.15 0.8304 2.19 w0 −0.9808 −0.9358+0.039−0.073 −1.04 −0.7972 wa −0.04176 −0.188+0.29−0.17 −0.7417 0.2638 σ8 0.814 0.8141+0.013−0.014 0.7875 0.8416 TABLE II. Results of the MCMC analysis for various cos- mological and gravity parameters, for the case withatandτ varying.
relation gives a reasonable approximation to the pre- ferred region of effective dark energy parameter space even within the modified gravity theory studied. This offers a way of reducing the dimension of the parameter space to be fit (although we fit for the fullw0–wa space).
No Slip Gravity is an interesting example theory in that it has a simple relation ofGmatter andGlighttoM?2. Furthermore it is unusual among modified gravity the- ories in suppressing growth, as data mildly prefers. We extended previous analysis also to effects beyond growth, in particularGlight as well asGmatter.
We studied No Slip Gravity predictions for growth of large scale structure (f σ8), light propagation (decay of potentials and lensing), CMB, and ISW crosscorre- lations. No Slip Gravity (and No Run Gravity) gives standard positive ISW-galaxy crosscorrelation – as the data prefers – unlike in some modified gravity models.
We also found that an analytic approximation for lens-
FIG. 9. Marginalized one dimensional posterior comparison for thecM parameter between the two MCMC analyses per- formed. We can see the shift in the peak of the distribution to more negative values whenτ andat are allowed to vary.
(Note the tails to positivecM are artifacts of the plotting and do not occur in the chains due to stability conditions.)
FIG. 10. The joint posterior between the dark energy equa- tion of state parameters is shown for the two analysis cases, with the mirage linewa=−3.6 (1 +w0) overlaid.
ing and ISW suppression holds for the new hill-valley model. Mirage models were demonstrated to have simi- lar growth histories to each other in GR, and in modified gravity, i.e. mirage dark energy withw0=−0.8 is similar to ΛCDM even in modified gravity. This holds as well with respect to similar lensing suppression.
We modified the Boltzmann code hi class for this new model of No Slip Gravity (with the modified version made publicly available on GitHub at the URL give in
Sec. VI), and furthermore adapted the code to enable computation of the redshift space distortion observable f σ8 and its application in MCMC likelihood evaluation for modified gravity.
Carrying out an MCMC analysis using current data we find the background parameters are consistent with general relativity and ΛCDM, but the modified gravity case somewhat lowers the value of σ8, easing the ten- sion with weak lensing measurements. For the ampli- tude of the modified gravity strength, 0> cM >−0.08, i.e.|αM,max|<0.03, with general relativity lying within the 95% confidence level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge helpful conversations with Miguel Zumalac´arregui. This work made use of the CHE cluster, managed and funded by COSMO/CBPF/MCTI, with financial support from FINEP and FAPERJ, and operating at the Javier Magnin Computing Cen- ter/CBPF. GB would like to acknowledge the State Scientific and Innovation Funding Agency of Espirito Santo (FAPES, Brazil) and the Brazilian Physical Society (SBF) through the SBF/APS PhD Exchange Program for financial support. GB would also like to thank LBL for the hospitality and financial support. FTF would like to thank the National Scientific and Technological Re- search Council (CNPq, Brazil) for financial support. HV would like to thank FAPES and CNPq for financial sup- port. GB gratefully acknowledges Renan A. Oliveira and David Camarena for useful discussions in an early ver- sion of this work. This work is supported in part by the Energetic Cosmos Laboratory and by the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, under Award DE-SC-0007867 and contract no.
DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Appendix A: Variation ofat and τ
As described in Sec. III, the values chosen for the transition time and width parameters, at and τ, of the hill/valley form for the illustrative plots were motivated by physical reasons of being close to the onset of cosmic acceleration and having the transition of order one e-fold of expansion. This also leads to an opportunity for the
modified gravity to have an appreciable impact on obser- vations. Of course in Sec. VIthe Monte Carlo analysis scans over these parameters.
Here we show that the reasonably natural values cho- sen,at = 0.5 and τ = 1, are not special with regard to stability considerations, i.e. not a small island in parame- ter space. This also motivates priors for the Monte Carlo sampling. Figure11shows the stability region in theτ– w0plane for the mirage model, fixing the other hill/valley parameters to the fiducial values: cM = −0.05 and at= 0.5. Values ofτlarger thanτc= (3 +√
33)/4≈2.19 are ruled out by instability at early times (this value is independent of cM and at); the side regions are ruled out by instability at more recent times. Figure12shows the corresponding diagram in theat–w0plane, with fixed τ = 1. A transition occurring too early gives rise to in- stability at early times.
FIG. 11. The stability region for the hill/valley form ofαM is shown in theτ–w0plane, for the mirage dark energy equation of state. The unplotted parameters are set to their fiducial valuescM =−0.05,at= 0.5.
[1] E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, Maximal freedom at minimum cost: linear large-scale structure in general modifications of gravity, JCAP 1407, 050 (2014) [arXiv:1404.3711]
[2] G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, The effective field theory of dark energy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.
02 (2013) 032 [arXiv:1210.0201]
[3] J. K. Bloomfield, E. E. Flanagan, M. Park, and S. Wat- son, Dark energy or modified gravity? An effective field
theory approach, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2013) 010 [arXiv:1211.7054]
[4] J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, Es- sential building blocks of dark energy, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 08 (2013) 025 [arXiv:1304.4840]
[5] E. V. Linder, G. Seng¨or and S. Watson, Is the Effec- tive Field Theory of Dark Energy Effective?, JCAP 1605 (2016) 053 [arXiv:1512.06180].
FIG. 12. As Fig.11but for theat–w0 plane. The unplotted parameters are set to their fiducial valuescM =−0.05,τ= 1.
[6] E. V. Linder, No Slip Gravity, JCAP 1803, 005 (2018) [arXiv:1801.01503].
[7] G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10 (1974) 363.
[8] C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer and G. Zahariade, From k-essence to generalised Galileons, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 064039 [1103.3260].
[9] B. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev.
Lett. 119, 161101 (2017).
[10] B. P. Abbott et al., The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 848, L13 (2017), URL http://stacks.iop.org/2041- 8205/848/i=2/a=L13.
[11] B. P. Abbott et al., The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 848, L12 (2017), URL http://stacks.iop.org/2041- 8205/848/i=2/a=L12.
[12] N. Frusciante, G. Papadomanolakis, S. Peirone and A.
Silvestri, The role of the tachyonic instability in Horn- deski gravity,arXiv:1810.03461.
[13] B. Hu, M. Raveri, N. Frusciante, and A. Silvestri, Phys.
Rev. D89, 103530 (2014) [arXiv:1312.5742]
[14] M. Raveri, B. Hu, N. Frusciante, and A. Silvestri, Phys.
Rev. D90, 043513 (2014) [arXiv:1405.1022]
[15] M. Zumalac´arregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, J. Lesgour- gues, P. Ferreira, hi class: Horndeski in the Cosmic Lin- ear Anisotropy Solving System, JCAP 1708 (2017) 019.
[16] M. Denissenya and E. Linder, Gravity’s Islands:
Parametrizing Horndeski Stability, JCAP 1811, 010 (2018) [arXiv:1808.00013]
[17] E.V. Linder, The Mirage ofw=−1,arXiv:0708.0024 [18] E.V. Linder, No Run Gravity,arXiv:1903.02010
[19] F. Beutler et al., The 6dF Galaxy Survey:z≈0 measure- ments of the growth rate andσ8, Mon. Not. R. Astron.
Soc. 423, 3430 (2012) [arXiv:1204.4725].
[20] C. Blake et al., Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA):
improved cosmic growth measurements using multiple tracers of large-scale structure, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
436, 3089 (2013) [arXiv:1309.5556]
[21] BOSS collaboration, S. Alam et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470 (2017) 2617 [arXiv:1607.03155]
[22] C. Blake et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012) [arXiv:1204.3674]
[23] S. de la Torre et al., The VIMOS Public Extragalac- tic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). Galaxy clustering and redshift-space distortions atz≈0.8 in the first data re- lease, Astron. Astroph. 557, 54 (2013) [arXiv:1303.2622].
[24] M.J. Francis, G.F. Lewis, E.V. Linder, Power Spectra to 1% Accuracy between Dynamical Dark Energy Cos- mologies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 380, 1079 (2007) [arXiv:0704.0312]
[25] J. Renk, M. Zumalac´arregui and F. Montanari, Gravity at the horizon: on relativistic effects, CMB-LSS correla- tions and ultra-large scales in Horndeski’s theory, JCAP 1607 (2016) 040 [1604.03487]
[26] J. Renk, M. Zumalac´arregui, F. Montanari and A. Bar- reira, Galileon gravity in light of ISW, CMB, BAO and H0 data, JCAP 1710 (2017) 020 [1707.02263].
[27] Noller J., Nicola A., 2018b,arXiv:1811.12928
[28] M. Brush, E.V. Linder, and M. Zumalac´arregui, JCAP 1901, 029 (2019) [arXiv:1810.12337]
[29]http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/
[30] S. Ho, C. Hirata, N. Padmanabhan, U.
Seljak and N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043519 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043519 [arXiv:0801.0642[astro-ph]].
[31] B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed and S. Prunet, Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illus- tration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter in- ference code, JCAP 1302, 001 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2013/02/001 [arXiv:1210.7183].
[32] T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features, arXiv:1804.07261.
[33] E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, E.V. Linder, J. Silk, Constraining Dark Energy Dynamics in Extended Pa- rameter Space, Phys. Rev. D 96, 023523 (2017) [arXiv:1704.00762]
[34] N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2015 results. XI. CMB power spectra, likelihoods, and robustness of parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A11. arXiv:1507.02704, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526926.
[35] P. A. R. Ade, et al., Planck 2015 results. XV. Grav- itational lensing, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A15.
arXiv:1502.01591, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525941.
[36] A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A.
Burden, M. Manera, The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample I. A 4 per cent distance measure atz= 0.15, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449 (1) (2015) 835847.arXiv:1409.3242, doi:10.1093/mnras/ stv154.
[37] M. Betoule, et al., Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS su- pernova samples, Astron. Astrophys. 568 (2014) A22.
arXiv:1401.4064, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413.
[38] A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Inference from Iterative
Simulation Using Multiple Sequences, Statist. Sci. 7 (1992) 457.
[39] H. Hildebrandt et al., KiDS-450: Cosmological param- eter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 1454 (2017) [arXiv:1606.05338]
[40] S. Joudaki et al., KiDS-450 + 2dFLenS: Cosmologi- cal parameter constraints from weak gravitational lens- ing tomography and overlapping redshift-space galaxy clustering, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 4894 (2017) [arXiv:1707.06627]
[41] DES Collaboration, Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Re-
sults: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Cluster- ing and Weak Lensing, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043526 (2018) [arXiv:1708.01530]
[42] M. Troxel et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results:
Cosmological Constraints from Cosmic Shear, Phys. Rev.
D 98, 043528 (2018) [arXiv:1708.01538]
[43] A. Amon et al., KiDS+2dFLenS+GAMA: Testing the cosmological model with theEGstatistic, Mon. Not. R.
Astron. Soc. 479, 3422 (2018) [arXiv:1711.10999]
[44] C. Hikage et al., Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data, Pub. Ast. Soc. Japan 71, 43 (2019) [arXiv:1809.09148]
